Greenberg and Mitchell (1983) described broader notions of an individual’s personality as a set of latent traits that influence how this individual views themselves, how they interact with others, and how they interpret and respond to their environment. Certain clusters of latent traits are thought to create patterns of dysfunctional behaviors; these clusters are used to describe different personality disorders. Although not explicitly in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychopathy is considered a personality disorder (Hare, Hart, & Harpur, 1991). Generally, this disorder is believed to be defined by personality traits that promote dysfunction in emotional, interpersonal, and behavior domains of functioning (Cleckley, 1976; Cooke et al., 2012;
Dawson et al., 2012). Within these three domains, Cleckley (1976) listed 16 personality traits that he felt were critical to the psychopathy construct. However, these traits were simply described by Cleckley (1976) without giving consideration to specific measurement procedures.
To more systematically assess for symptoms of psychopathy, Hare (1980) developed the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), which eventually was replaced by the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R). In addition to the influence of Cleckley, this instrument was constructed based on Hare’s (2003) experiences with incarcerated male adult offenders. The PCL-R provides an assessment and rating of psychopathic personality based on a maximum score of 40, with a score of 30 or higher typically representing the criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy in adulthood (Hare, 2003). However, operationalizing psychopathy in this manner (i.e., as a categorical construct) may arise in several limitations. First, cut score criteria are largely arbitrary and vary across jurisdictions (e.g., North America versus Europe). Second, this categorical approach risks including individuals who are not ‘psychopathic’ or excluding individuals who are ‘psychopathic’, which increases the risks of false positives and false negative in the prediction of offending (Iselin, Gallucci, & DeCoster, 2013). Third, the DSM-V as well as more recent studies using advanced analytic techniques (e.g., Edens, Marcus, Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006; Haslam, Holland, & Kuppens, 2012; Murrie et al., 2007; Strickland, Drislane, Lucy, Krueger, & Patrick, 2013; Walters, Duncan, & Mitchell-Perez, 2007) support the assertion that psychopathy is a dimensional construct rather than a categorical one.
In terms of underlying personality and behavioural dimensions, confirmatory factor analyses of the PCL-R have supported the retention of a two factor model comprised of interpersonal and affective deficits (Factor 1) and social deviance items (Factor 2; Hare, 1991), a two-factor four facet model divided into interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial domains (Hare & Neumann, 2006), and a three facet model which simply excludes the antisocial facet described by Hare and Neumann (2006). The debate regarding these models has focused on whether antisocial indicators should be included in the measurement of psychopathy. Such inclusion was controversial because (a) it was felt that reliance on these items moved the measurement of psychopathy away from
personality theory and (b) inclusion of these antisocial indicators created tautological issues (Skeem & Cooke, 2010; cf., Hare & Neumann, 2010).
According to Dawson et al.’s (2012) analysis, of the twenty items included in the PCL-R, five were directly measured based on the individual’s involvement in prior criminal or antisocial behavior. These items included: (1) serious criminal behaviour, (2) serious violations of conditional release, (3) criminal versatility, (4) early behavior problems, and (5) poor anger control. Cooke and Skeem (2010) argued that these antisocial behaviors were consequences of these traits, rather than primary symptoms of the disorder itself. Cooke et al. (2004) maintained that the PCL-R’s emphasis on antisocial items shifted focus away from psychopathy as personality disorder. Additionally, tautological concerns have been raised on the basis of the PCL-R’s measurement of prior criminal behavior to predict future criminal behavior (Dawson et al., 2012). This has been referred to as an issue of criterion contamination, where there is overlap between the predictor and outcome variables (Forth & Book, 2010).
In addition to PCL-R items directly measured by prior criminal or antisocial behavior, there are also five items on the PCL-R that are defined by impulsive or irresponsible behaviour, including: (1) stimulation-seeking, (2) impulsivity, (3) parasitic orientation, (4) irresponsibility, and (5) lack of long-term goals. From Farrington’s (2005) perspective, this is problematic because involvement in antisocial and criminal behavior are characteristics of the items described above. As a consequence, inclusion of antisocial behavior items was essentially a second counting of the items tapping into impulsive and irresponsible behavior, making the PCL-R even more biased towards measurement of psychopathy via behavioral items rather than s rather than personality indicators. Indeed, just 10 of the 20 items measured using the PCL-R capture the classic personality traits of psychopathy, such as a lack of remorse, shallow affect, and callousness (Cleckley, 1976; Kreis et al., 2012). Cooke and Michie (2001) demonstrated that the solution to this issue was to exclude the antisocial facet from the measurement of psychopathy. However, not surprisingly, Hare (2003; also see Hare & Neumann, 2005, 2006) as well as others (e.g., Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003; Salekin, Brannen, Zalot, Leistico, & Neumann, 2006) maintained that the inclusion of antisocial items was helpful for criminal justice purposes in terms of the prediction of offending outcomes.
3.1.1.
State of the Extant Research on Psychopathy and Offending
Despite the negative perspective of the antisocial facet (Skeem & Cooke,2010), this facet has been consistently informative of recidivism (Corrado, Vincent, Hart, & Cohen, 2004; Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Piquero et al., 2012; Vitacco, Neumann, Caldwell, Leistico, & Van Rybroek, 2006; Vincent, Odgers, McCormick, & Corrado, 2008; Vitacco, Neumann, & Jackson, 2005; Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008) as well as other outcomes such as institutional aggression/misconduct (Douglas, Ogloff, Nicholls, & Grant, 1999; Douglas, Strand, Belfrage, & Fransson, 2005; Edens & Campbell, 2007; Guy, Edens, Anthony, & Douglas, 2005; Heilbrun, Hart, Hare, Gustafson, Nunez, & White, 1998). These findings support Hare’s (2003) assertions that the antisocial facet should be included in the assessment of psychopathy to assist criminal justice system practitioners in identifying which offenders are most at risk of re-offending.More generally, higher symptoms of psychopathy appear to be important indicators of both general and violent recidivism, whether measured using a three or four factor model of the PCL or even an entirely different instrument, (e.g., Corrado et al. 2004; Edens, Campbell, & Weir, 2006; Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Gretton, McBride, O’Shaugnessy, & Kumka, 2001; Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991; Hart, Kropp, & Hare, 1988; Kosson, Smith, & Newman, 1990; Porter, Birt, & Boer, 2001; Salekin, 2008; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996; Schmidt, McKinnon, Chatta, & Brownlee, 2006; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008; Vincent et al., 2008; Vincent, Vitacco, Grisso, & Corrado, 2003; Walsh & Kosson, 2007; Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008). However, this emphasis on testing psychopathy with a sole reliance on recidivism outcomes raises an additional key validity concern. As discussed by Lussier, McCuish, and Corrado (2015), such conceptualizations of offending persistence fail to properly account for differential likelihoods of recidivism over age. Moreover, the abovementioned studies failed to distinguish between offenders that recidivated as part of a downward trajectory (i.e., as part of the desistance process) and offenders that recidivate as part of an escalating trajectory. As such, when assessing the predictive validity of psychopathy it may be necessary to take additional steps to better capture an offender’s broader criminal career (e.g., use psychopathy to predict long-term patterns of offending behavior).